Category Archives: Critiques

How do we decide whether the quality of an Eagle’s work is ready for an Exhibition?

Answer: the Eagle has to pitch to his or her studiomates, requesting a “green light” to proceed. This session’s Four Minute Speech; the 30 Second Video and Rube Goldberg device each required a separate pitch.

What follows a pitch? First, a warm/cool critique, offering affirmation and suggestions for improvement. Then, a vote.

What if the green light approval is denied? You go back to the drawing board, make improvements, and try again. That’s what heroes do when they fail: they get back up, dust themselves off, and get back to work.

How do we provide raw material for the Eagles’ Rube Goldberg machines?

First, we put out a call to all Eagle families, asking parents to clear their closets of unused toys and gadgets, and send them to campus..

Next we hold a Hunger Games Cornucopia – a competitive contest to see who can plan, search and secure the most important raw materials.

Here’s how it works:

Eagles rank each Scientific Creator research pitch.

The five highest ranked Eagles get the first two minutes at the Cornucopia, and can select whatever materials they need. The only rule: You must use anything you take. Any item bought from the Cornucopia afterwards will cost an Eagle Buck.

Repeat Step 2 until every Eagle has had a chance to graze at the Cornucopia.

What do Guides at Acton Academy actually do, if we never teach or respond to questions?

The answer – we’re Game Makers. We describe an exciting end goal, design the incentives, suggest a few boundaries or rules, provide a list of tools and process — and then get out of the way. Our goal is to inspire Eagles to pack as much learning into the day as possible.

Take for example, this session’s Creator Speech Quest. First, each Eagle chooses a Scientific Explorer of Ideas (a paradigm buster); Innovator or Inventor. Five weeks from now, at the public exhibition, each will deliver an original four minute “hero’s journey” speech from the shoes of their Creator and unveil a Rube Goldberg device that celebrates the scientific contributions of their hero.

Here’s the catch – a maximum of eight Creators per category will be allowed to speak. So who determines which Eagle qualifies for which spot? The Eagles themselves.

1. First, all Eagles in a category deliver a two minute pitch displaying their research and mind map, asking to be “green lighted” (approved.) Everyone in the group rates each pitch and provides warm and cool critiques.

2. The top rated 2/3 of the group (a maximum of five) are elected to be the Excellence Committee for that group. The Excellence Committee decides whether those receiving a lower rating should be admitted immediately (up to a maximum of eight) or asked to do more research and polishing and then pitch again.

3. What keeps the Excellence Committee from quickly approving more members and filling the group? The final ratings, from customers at the exhibition, will be based on the average rating per person. So you do not want any slackers on the team to bring down your average score.

Today was pitch day. Nine Eagles pitched for Inventors; nine for Innovators; three for Creators. Five were admitted to the first and second groups; two to the third group. Standards were high. Many Eagles were asked to do additional work and pitch again.

The result:

1. A high level of energy and enthusiasm, because each Eagle chose a hero who appealed to his or her calling.

2. Standards were set by Eagles and kept high. If you hadn’t turned in first rate work, there was no shame, but you got the chance to try again. Plus you received a great deal of encouragement and coaching.

3. Along the way, there was much work and learning around the processes for research, mind mapping, pitching and how to compete for scarce resources – all with an eye toward rigor.

4. Eagles learned a lot about the lives of twenty four different scientific heroes, and what motivated them.

Examples of the criteria Eagles developed to judge “productive research:”

Quality and credibility of sources;

Number and variety of sources;

At least one serious biography selected.

Facts; opinions and stories.

Clearly organized and present with enthusiasm.

Tells a Hero’s Story.

Some of the questions asked during grilling:

How much time will you be able to work on this? What will you sacrifice to make room for this effort?

What progress have you made so far on your Rube Goldberg device?

How will your Rube Goldberg device reflect your hero’s contributions?

Are you going to spend more time or less time and effort on this project than you did on the rocket project? Do you promise?

Will you spend more time and effort on your hero’s speech or your Rube Goldberg device?

How much research have you done and how much more will you promise to do?

Self organizing learning; making research fun; adding a competitive edge to encourage rigor and excellence – not a bad day’s work for a Guide, especially since we didn’t do much at all.

Today was our first major peer critique of the bestselling book project.

Eagles have brainstormed ideas; chosen a topic and finished (most of) a rough draft. Next comes the hard part, revision, where main points must be clarified, ordered, deleted and supplemented.

Revision is the most difficult part of writing, more like major surgery as opposed to the finer shaping and tucking that occurs while editing.

If you a Guide, now is when your palms get sweaty. Have we asked too much? After all, it’s crazy to expect middle schoolers to write, produce and sell a book in an eight week period. Right?

Today the Eagles formed into three to four student critique groups. Each was asked to force rank each rough draft based on the following criteria:

Main point: The main point or question of the book is crystal clear and stated in the introduction.

Chapters: Each main point or question clearly and seriously contributes to the overall main point.

The order of the chapters makes sense.

There are enough facts, quotes and stories to back up the main points in each chapter.

The perspective (first, second or third person); tense (past, present, future, other) and mood are consistent.

The introduction: immediately engages me; makes the audience and main point or question clear by making a promise and describes the journey we will go on together (the main points.) The conclusion restates the main point or question; describes the journey we have gone on (main points) and makes a persuasive case that the promise has been fulfilled.

Each middle schooler who has earned an Independent Learner badge has can serve as an Eagle Buddy, guiding a team of elementary school Eagles in setting and delivering on their weekly SMART goals.

Being an Eagle Buddy is an honor, it must be earned.

Each Eagle Buddy leader has negotiated a relational covenant with his or her group, setting forth clear expectations and consequences. This covenant was signed with great ceremony.

If an elementary school Eagle is not keeping his or her part of the bargain, the Eagle may be asked to leave the group.

Every week, the elementary Eagles rate the effectiveness of their Eagle Buddy leader, using Survey Monkey to provide feedback. One low score means probation for the leader; the second low score means the leader must resign.

Last week we experimented with 360 reviews, a community building tool used at some of America’s top companies, like Apple and Google.

First, each Eagle was given the survey below and asked to rate every classmate’s Tough- mindedness (a measure of how they hold themselves and others accountable) and Warmheartedness (a measure of how encouraging they are to others) on a 1 (low) to 5 (high) score.

The purpose of this survey is to provide anonymous feedback to your fellow Eagles to help them become more “tough minded without being hardhearted” Level 5 Leaders.

Below you will be asked to rate each of your classmates on their “tough mindedness” and “warmheartedness,” each on a 1-5 scale.

Level Five Leaders are toughminded and warmhearted. They are encouraging, draw boundaries, set consequences and keep promises to themselves and others, while remaining cheerful and friendly.

Policeman hold firm boundaries but tend to focus on criticizing mistakes and individuals rather than praising behavior and progress.

Pushovers praise often but are afraid to hold people accountable; because of a lack of courage they do not help their friends grow.

Snarks make the poorest choices of all. They criticize and tear people down AND fail to hold themselves and others accountable.”

We collected the surveys, then summarized and plotted results on a 2×2 matrix (low to high Tough-mindedness versus low to high Warmheartedness) and made the output anonymous by substituting a number for each Eagle’s name.

Each Eagle then was asked to (silently) assess and write down where they thought their classmates had ranked them, before each learned his or her actual position on the graph (results were privately distributed to avoid any embarrassment.)

In most cases, Eagles accurately assessed where they would be ranked. Those in the lowest quadrant were the most accurate, while those in the higher quadrants tended to be more modest about their studio-mates’ opinions.

The effects on motivation? We don’t know yet. But at least each Eagle now has areas where they can improve, and a clearer sense of how their classmates view their contributions.

James Madison wrote in Federalist 51: “If men were angels, no government would be necessary.”

Our middle schoolers are no angels, at least not all the time. But they are an impressive group of young men and women, learning to govern each other with a grace and dignity that few adults could match.

Today we had a model Town Hall meeting: the choices well framed; each welcomed to speak; the rules of engagement enforced.

Starting next week, we’ll experiment with another self-accountability experiment, and see how it affects motivation.

First each Eagle will certify which weekly challenges from he or she has completed. Then the Council randomly will draw one computerized deliverable (like Khan Academy) and another non-computerized deliverable (like a journal entry.) Each Eagle will be asked to publicly post his or her results for these deliverables and self rank whether the contribution was in the lower, middle or bottom part of the class.

There is no penalty for choosing not to complete a challenge, except the loss of points towards Eagle Bucks, and possibly missing the weekly adventure, if that specific deliverable was required to qualify.

The penalty for certifying you have completed a deliverable and done “your best work” if it’s obvious you haven’t, will be being sent home, no questions asked, since this is a serious violation of the community honor code.

Next week we elect a new Council, as other Eagles earn a chance to lead. This Council will be missed.

We trust our Eagles to report whether or not they have completed a challenge and done their “best work.” Human beings, however, are fallible, especially when given too much to do, in too little time, with special adventures being offered for delivering everything on time.

Last week we decided to focus on the importance of self reporting, and accidentally created a firestorm of confusion.

We paid special attention last week to self reporting in Socratic discussions, stressing the importance of reporting accurately and turning in “the best work you can do.” On Friday, when it came time to qualify for this week’s special adventure, we read the checklist of deliverables item by item, asking Eagles to sit if they had missed an item. Many Eagles sat down, acknowledging that they hadn’t completed one task or another, understandable, given the workload they’ve been under. By the end, fifteen or so Eagles had certified that they had completed all the items.

Afterwards, a Guide checked the No Red Ink program and noticed that five of those who reported they had scored a 90 or above on this week’s quiz had not achieved this goal, according to the program’s dashboard.

A Council meeting was called, and the Council agreed that the misreporting was serious enough that the five Eagles would be asked to remain home on Monday, and decided to inform each privately to avoid embarrassment.

After the Eagles were informed, one Eagle showed one Guide a screen shot that showed he/she had scored a 100 and the dashboard had not accurately captured his/her score. Another Eagle swore that he/she had finished with a 90, but the dashboard showed otherwise. A third Eagle claimed to have accidentally done the wrong test and the dashboard confirmed that the Eagle had scored a 100, but on the wrong quiz. The last two Eagles, as far as we know, did not lodge an immediate appeal. Later, one would report that he/she had scored a 90.

At this point, with only a few minutes before Friday’s field trip adventure would begin, there was mass confusion. It is important to note that there were several categories of errors: (1) An apparent technical glitch in the program; (2) A possible error in submitting a final score, either by the program or an Eagle not hitting “submit;” (3) An Eagle who had done the wrong test but accurately reported his/her score; (4) An Eagle who reported a 90 but had no independent verification; and (5) One Eagle who said he/she just failed to listen/read carefully enough.

Which of these were “the dog ate my homework” errors; which were forgivable and which were more serious lapses?

Because of all the confusion and ambiguity, the Council voted over the weekend that all Eagles will be invited back to campus on Monday, and this incident will be put behind us.

Further investigation this weekend suggests that while some Eagles may have been genuinely confused, the computer program appears likely to have been accurately reporting scores all along, and that there is a high likelihood that several of the Eagles did not score a 90 or above.

As you can imagine, still lots of confusion and some hard feelings, which we will sort out this week, being careful to separate the personal issues from the governance issues and to prevent long term hard feelings or factions. Those with a personal issue with another Eagle will be encouraged to address the person openly and directly with a facilitated process, either in private or publicly. Governance issues and strengthening due process in the studio will be addressed in a Town Hall meeting.

As parents, we’ve learned at Acton to listen empathetically; equip our Eagles with the right words, and then send them back into the fray to sort things out for themselves. It’s hard to do, but the best way to learn to cope and stay healthy in the real world, in high pressure situations.

Human communities are messy, but the Eagles (and Guides) are learning lots of important lessons, especially about self governance in an Eagle led learning community.

Ten Middle School Eagles began guiding in the Elementary School, helping the ES Eagles set and record daily SMART goals. Each SMART goal group will have a learning contract and every Eagle will work hard to remain in Socratic mode and respect the Rules of Engagement.

5. The five words you’d want the audience to say about you after seeing the portfolio.

Next the Eagles split into two groups, where each presented his or her portfolio and received a 1-5 rating and warm (positive) and cool (“I’d suggest this”) critiques.

The entire group then assembled to listen to the finalists present their portfolios again, provide more warm and cool critiques, and vote for first, second and third place.

The creator of the top rated portfolio (left) spontaneously congratulated the second and third place finishers.

All portfolio creators then returned to the drawing board to use what they had learned to improve their presentations.

Setting their own criteria. Giving and receiving critiques. Choosing the “best work.” Taking what you have learned for another round of improvement. A far better approach to 21st century mastery than having an adult award “A’s” to those who obediently regurgitate answers on a standardized test.

Clue, Boggle… Alamo Dodgeball, check. But we also use games to inspire and motivate, to gauge comprehension, and to challenge the Eagles to keep striving towards excellence.
Yesterday the Eagles spent the morning doing core skills as usual, with the added twist of acting as members of the clergy, nobility, bourgeoisie or peasantry of late18th-century France (didn’t take long for a revolution to manifest). In the afternoon, they competed in the Anticipate the Questions game, putting their virtual travel itineraries through a series of fun but grueling real-world troubleshoots.

Thanks to the dad of an incoming Eagle for sharing this article about the latest research on the creaky monarchy of the A-F system: http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/doublex/2013/05/the_case_against_grades_they_lower_self_esteem_discourage_creativity_and.html
Games, projects and discussions instead of lectures, tests and grades. In the words of King Louis XVI’s advisor, it’s not a revolt, sire, it’s a revolution.

Exhibitions naturally motivate, without the need for a grade. A looming speech focuses the mind like a good hanging (with apologies to Samuel Johnson.)

But how do you motivate someone to do their “best work” on the first, second or third draft of a multi-week project, without having a teacher assign a grade?

Here’s one way: Post a few examples of world class finished products (in this case, a travel itinerary and budget.) Then ask students: “We are xx% finished with the time allotted for this project; are you xx% of the way to ‘the best work you can do’ at completion?”

We expect far too little of our young people. Really. Even when we know they are geniuses-in-the-making.

Our Middle School Eagles just published a Mystery Anthology, and presented two copies to the Elementary Eagles, who have been competing to see who can devour it first. Today we received this email from on of the ES students:

Hi Ms.Abigail,

I have a blog called Read This! and I recently reviewed your storybook on there. I am sending you the link so if you would like to read it you can. The link is http://readthisnk.blogspot.com/

Sincerely,

Nikita

This afternoon, we found out a Middle School Eagle will have an editorial published in the Austin paper next week, as a result of her apprenticeship.

Finally, and most powerfully, today we asked our MS Eagles to “stand in the box” as they read the rough draft of their hero speeches. We even invited in a flock of Elementary Eagles as an audience, to increase the pressure.

Frankly, I didn’t expect much. It was a first draft of a difficult speech, performed by two of our more reserved Eagles, who had struggled with the assignment. The goal simply was to get them in front of an audience.

Then the first Eagle began to read, and we were all mesmerized by her words. And the the second Eagle delivered a powerful plea to save his homeland from invaders. In both cases, I promise you that anyone within earshot would have answered the calls.

Later, as I was describing the impact of the performances, one of my high powered MBA’s said: “It’s so good that you are teaching them such a critical life skill.”

But you see, we didn’t teach them anything. Each Eagle knew all along how to write and deliver a moving speech, in an original voice.

An eight year old with a blog, writing book reviews.

A twelve year old publishing an editorial in a major metropolitan newspaper.

We do not like unanimity. Usually, it means we’ve asked a bad question.

This week, Eagles have worked on discussion skills with a sometimes jarring rigor. Their progress has been amazing! Next step: commenting intentionally to one another rather than filtering through a guide. Guides’ big work: to trust, and step aside.

When is the last time you’ve printed out an email for your peers to critique before sending, or took a strong stand in a Socratic discussion, arguing against even your most respected friends? Or shared honest reflections about your efforts through the week, aloud, to a supportive yet competitive team of colleagues? Or made an impassioned speech in front of a small group?

Our students have done all of this, and just in the past 24 hours. They’ve set for themselves quite high standards of excellence. Not always met; five months into this, most of the young adults in our community have experienced failure as defined by their own terms, and every single one has picked themselves back up to try again. Failure or success both possible, but perseverance non-negotiable. And lessons learned that they will never forget.

Back to unanimity: Is asking the Eagles to catch a classmate in the act of committing kindness a weak challenge? Always room for improvement, but it was beautiful to end the day on a chorus of commendations. Never degrading into chaos, all made their voices heard in support of the kindness of their peers. Who won? everyone, of course.

“You can do it! You will have many more opportunities. I will help you if you want help.”

“It’s okay- let’s do it again, so you can get it”, because I do not want them to go through life thinking , “If I fail, it means I’m not supposed to do this”.

“Don’t beat yourself up. Let’s try again.”

These are some of the words the Eagles wrote in their journals this morning as they considered what to say to a friend who fails to reach a goal. The question arose: would you rather work with a partner who succeeds when you fail, or who fails with you? Many stated that they’d want to work with someone who succeeds, so they can learn from that person. Some preferred the idea of learning alongside someone on the same level, making mistakes together, growing together.

“An unstoppable force!” is how one Eagle described a team where one partner’s strengths complement the other’s weaknesses, and vice-versa.

At the start of history class, Ms. Laura asked students: what motivates you? why do you work as hard as you do? and after collecting responses, did a beautiful job of refreshing everyone’s memory about the meaning of Socratic discussion: Socratic discussion is not a debate, it’s a principled discussion. There’s no argument to be won; the point is to seek truth, to seek a new perspective. With these reminders, the Eagles participated in student-led Socratic discovery about exploration before lying down to listen to the story of the rise and fall of Dutch New Amsterdam in the New World.

Teamwork was spotlighted during project time, launched by Ms. Anna with a clip about the product design firm Ideo. The Eagles were taken with this radical approach to collaboration and remarked about how “constructive rather than destructive chaos” could lead to great things. They got to put the concept into action by dividing into small teams to critique each others’ games (link to the ideo video: http://vimeo.com/21086801 use password:academy), reporting afterwards how helpful the extra brain power was in improving their work, experiencing first hand the Ideo mantra of “Enlightened trial and error” outpeforming the “planning of a lone genius”.

The school day closed with a revisit to our Hero’s Journey map, as we come close to the end of this first semester at Acton. The questions of Who am I? What promises must be made and kept? Who’s walking with me? have taken on visceral meaning for these young adults as they’ve looked deep within and asked themselves tough questions, worked hard to fine-tune and adhere to their own systems of self-management, decision making and accountability, and collaborated with running partners and small groups on film and other projects.

But for our Heroes, the learning doesn’t stop at 3:15. Except for a handful of Eagles whose intense sports commitments preclude it, Thursdays are chess club day. Carpe Diem!

So how do you inspire Eagles take control of their own learning? Not an easy question.

Here’s a start. Today’s launch featured three stories:

1. 18-year-old Stacey Ferreira saw a tweet from entrepreneur Richard Branson about a charity event he was sponsoring , flew halfway across the country to meet him and left with $400,000 in funding for her new website.

2. Harvard Education professor Richard Elmore, who has observed over 2,000 classrooms, writes a blog post blasting traditional schools as “custodial institutions, designed to hold adolescents out of the labor force and to socialize them to adult control” adding that the “only other public institution in our society that works this way…is the prison system.”

3. A group of Silicon Valley entrepreneurs announces a new school where “every child is a genius,” giving credit for its inspiration to Acton Academy.

Stacey Ferreira is a hero who shows what our Eagles can accomplish. Professor Elmore paints a dismal picture of the educational alternatives. The Silicon Valley entrepreneurs are proof that what our Eagles’ efforts matter in the world.

During the day, progress continues in Core Skills, including an early glimpse of math in spring, where Eagles will choose independent paths in either Geometry, Algebra or Trigonometry. We also debate a change in self-governance designed to simplify SMART goals.

One Eagle pays off the loan she took out to start the school store:

In the afternoon, Eagles work hard on their Game Quest, some creating board games, others making electronic games, all knowing that next week’s public demonstration is fast approaching:

Story lines and critical thinking are stressed below.

Near the end of the afternoon, two Eagles demonstrate their game prototypes and receive formal critiques.

The end of the day discussion asks what advice our Eagles would offer to the Silicon Valley entrepreneurs. Is “hard work” or “fun” more important for creating the right learning environment? Which should be stressed first? Should the approach in the elementary school be different than the middle school?

At Acton Academy, we turn over the governance of the classroom to Eagles. Above, the past Council met with its recently elected replacements to discuss ways to inspire their fellow travelers to even greater heights.

Why do we trust the setting, encouragement and enforcement of maintaining incredibly high community learning standards to a group of students? Because they govern themselves far better than if lorded over by adults. And because we want our Eagles to be leaders, not rule followers.

So how does a beginning author or artist or game designer set their own standards of excellence? By looking at world class examples and comparing those to his or her first attempts.

Below, photos of Eagles creating and comparing prototype games.

And most importantly, the criteria they developed to judge whether or not a game is “world class.”

Here, an example of a group critique in action.

Because if you can learn to set your own standards; set them high; judge your progress draft after draft, gathering honest critiques as you move towards excellence, you are well on your way to the mastery of any skill, craft or art.

Today, along with Core Skills and our Gaming Quest, we worked on critiquing skills.

Abigail began the day with our Halloween clad Eagles by asking: “Is it more important when pursuing excellence to practice hard or have a world class example?” and demonstrated how feedback improved a butterfly drawn by a six year old child.

We then each critiqued writing from the Eagle’s journals, so students could practice the art of writing as “re-writing.”

Ms Anna continued the day with a workshop on critiquing itself, using fresh baked zucchini bread as a tool to practice the four rules for critiques: (Be kind; Be specific; Be helpful; and Critique the work and not the person;) as well as a procedure for giving powerful feedback: (1) Presentation of work (audience is silent; presenter asks a focusing question); (2) Audience feedback (warm; cold; warm) and (3) Presenter reflection (comments on how and why the feedback was helpful.)

Eagles ended with a story boarding exercise, sequencing and editing photos to hone their storytelling and story boarding skills for the film project.

In between, Mr Temp held court as Curious George’s Man-in-the Yellow-Hat, discussing this week’s MyHJ “look-in-the-mirror” experience on loyalty (look closely, and you’ll see George in the background.)